Participatory ecosystem-service assessment in five Slovenian protected areas reveals data and technical limits

A participatory study in five Slovenian protected areas and five nearby non-protected comparison areas found that stakeholder involvement was most useful for selecting and ranking ecosystem services, contributing expert knowledge and supporting interpretation of results, while data shortages and technical complexity constrained assessment and mapping.

The proof-of-concept study examined Triglav National Park, Škocjan Caves Regional Park, Kozjansko Regional Park, Goričko Landscape Park and Logar Valley Landscape Park. Representatives of each protected area selected a nearby non-protected reference area intended to be similar in natural conditions. The analysis measured the potential supply of ecosystem services rather than their actual use or demand.

Five participatory workshops were held from October 2022 to May 2023 with local and, in some cases, regional and national stakeholders. Participants allocated stickers to a shortened list of 39 services derived from the international CICES classification. This produced local rankings for the protected areas and most reference areas; stakeholders associated with Triglav National Park did not prioritise services in its geographically distant reference area.

A May 2023 panel involving park representatives, the Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning and the research team selected forage provision, pollination, and recreation and leisure for further assessment. The choice reflected stakeholder rankings, feasibility and data availability rather than representing a complete inventory of ecosystem services.

Forage provision was estimated with a GIS-based model of annual grassland biomass increments, adjusted for rainfall, slope and insolation. Pollination was assessed instead through a virtual group evaluation in which biologists, the project team, park representatives and institutional experts jointly assigned ecosystem scores from zero to five. Recreation and leisure was represented by a GIS-based recreational attractiveness index combining naturalness, proximity to water, land-use diversity, terrain ruggedness and peaks.

All three services were mapped, but missing geospatial data prevented some features, including hedgerows, gardens and ponds, from appearing on the maps. Protected and reference areas were compared pairwise using area-weighted indicator values and non-parametric statistical tests. The analysis covered only three services and did not address changes over time, economic valuation, demand or use.

Stakeholders generally ranked provisioning and cultural services above regulating services in both types of area. Water for drinking received the highest score among protected areas, while recreation and leisure ranked highest among the reference areas. The widely dispersed allocation of stickers limited the ability to distinguish the most critical services, particularly in the workshop with the largest attendance, suggesting that selection and prioritisation should be conducted in separate rounds.

Pollination capacity was higher in four protected areas and lower in one, while recreation and leisure capacity was higher in four protected areas and higher in the reference area at Triglav National Park. For forage provision, capacity was higher in one protected area, lower in three and not significantly different in one. These pairwise contrasts do not establish that protection caused the differences, and the results could differ if other ecosystem services had been selected.

The study had important limitations. Stakeholder groups, comparison-area sizes and local implementation varied among sites, potentially introducing bias, while workshops may have favoured people with the strongest interests. Data scarcity required approximations and influenced service selection, and time constraints prevented a fuller analysis of demand and use. The resulting comparisons are therefore partial, and conservation managers continued to regard some ecosystem-service work as unnecessarily complex or as potentially commodifying nature.

Subject of Research: Participatory assessment of ecosystem-service supply in Slovenian protected areas and nearby comparison areas

Article Title: Challenges related to stakeholder involvement in the assessment of ecosystem services in protected areas in Slovenia

Article References: Šmid Hribar, M., Japelj, A., Rac, I., Vurunić, S., & Ribeiro, D. (2025). Challenges related to stakeholder involvement in the assessment of ecosystem services in protected areas in Slovenia. One Ecosystem, 10, Article e163691. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.10.e163691

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3897/oneeco.10.e163691

Keywords: ecosystem services, protected areas, stakeholder participation, Slovenia, participatory mapping, pollination, recreation, forage provision, nature conservation, Challenges, related, stakeholder